He berates the "romantics." One of his derisive terms for the party's perpetually beaten-down, and now drifting away, left-wing, who "unhelpfully agitate to make the NDP politically irrelevant and unelectable." Also known as "leftier-than-thou showboaters."

You know; the kind of people who admire Bernie Sanders. (Yes, this is what it's come to.)

To Topp's thinking, the NDP's problem is the faction that's resolutely ignored at convention and forever shut out of any policy and strategy decision making.

I continue to be amazed by the snakes and self-aggrandizing hustlers Canadian 'progressives' allow, endorse or support to occupy positions of power. No wonder there is no truly progressive national grassroots party or political movement here at such a historically propitious time.

Being from BC here is the part of this political sage's resume that I remember the best.

BC election defeat (2013)

Topp was brought to Canada's West Coast by Adrian Dix, the provincial leader of the Official Opposition, to manage the 2013 election campaign for the British Columbia New Democratic Party. Despite starting with a significant lead in pre-election polls, the BCNDP campaign failed to prevent the re-election of the Liberals under Premier Christy Clark and actually won fewer seats for the party than in 2009. Topp admitted that he made certain "errors in strategy" that might have harmed the campaign.[48]

I met Topp in his campaign office at the Toronto convention centre for the 2011 NDP leadership convention (more like confronted him) and asked him about bill c-377. He admitted he never heard of it and I had to explain to him about it and labour’s approach. In fact, most of the candidates were caught off guard by my questions. I’m thinking they were so focused on trying to win that they forgot what was important.

Hey, it's your cherry tree. As for wanting to be offended, that's the last thing I wanted. But like Elvis Costello said, "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused." After a lifetime of rationalizing the party's half-measures and missteps, that sums up my relationship to the NDP these days.

Gee Brian I read the whole article and I thought he cherry picked very appropriately. Around here only using quotations and linking to the article is standard procedure. Thanks for giving me and my family four extra years of Christy. Your arrogant dismissal of many NDP members is why people like me who have worked on many campaigns and served for years on Executives of winning riding associations can't be bothered even sending a donation anymore. Why don't you just join the Liberal party and work for your incremental change from within that party?

This discussion is a misrepresentation of what I say in that article — Jeff Wells cherrypicks snippets because he wants to be offended.

Brian, the reason you are getting blowback is because you are attacking NDP activists...the "romantics" as you so sneeringly call them, when in reality the activists have been disregarded, disrespected, and driven away by the party for decades, when they aren't to blame for ANYTHING disapponting that's happened to the party at the polls.

Every decision the party has made which ended up costing it votes was made by YOUR crowd, the dismissive, antidemocratic "shut up and do what we tell you-we're the party and you're not" crowd. What could you possibly blame the activists and the Left FOR? And what is it that the Left has advocated that you are so terrified of? Was it ever THAT essential, for example, to block good peoplel from being NDP candidates just for acknowledging that Palestinians are human beings and that they don't deserve the misery Netanyahu and his predecessors in the Israeli government have inflicted on them? Also, why are your sort of NDP insider types so fixated on driving away social movement types, when the social movements are the only part of the center-left or left where any energy or political effectiveness exists?

Brian may be back, but he isn't actually engaging the discussion. His contributions to this thread are essentially "drive-bys", reflecting his insider attitude that he is somehow above having to actually make a case for something or fully elaborate on what he is talkng about.

Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly. In 2011/2012, Thomas Mulcair ran a campaign attacking the "romantics" within the NDP, and argued that the party needed to be realistic. Topp came in and paints himself as a leftie, who says we can win as social democrats. Now he's writing an article disparaging these same "romantics" he said he supported in 2011/12, while also speaking highly of Roy Romanow, who himself declared that he was a Blairite before the term "Blairite" existed?

Completely sleazy, dishonest, and reprehensible on the part of Mr. Topp. It boggles my mind that good people such as Libby Davies and Ed Broadbent did not see through that.

This piece confirms that given the options that were on the table, the NDP made the right decision in 2012.

Gee, Brian Topp really nailed it in that one! So what does he think about Ocasio-Cortez and her breakthrough of the commie/pinko demonizing wall in her country? Is it too early for her to become the anti-Trump?

If another Bernie can come along and really succeed in breaking the establishment control of the two Neo-Nazi parties, it could be the model and the impetus for the same in Canada!

get a grip kropotkin, before you get into leading the 'ban the Liberal' team mode. My ideology represents the future of the party more than your does these days. Learn a bit of tolerance and inclusiveness. Why kropotkin, some of us even support the pipeline! Imagine!

Actually Mont.. in my experience people who apply pet names for politicians are usually not their supporters.

I couldn't care less about the NDP winning or losing. I have done my years going the route of electing politicians to make a difference. After Bill's betrayal by Jack and the Ottawa cabal I have not bothered with the federal party.

I don't generally ask for anyone to be banned. However when I am in a certain kind of mood I will tell you to fuck off but never to try and silence you. You and Pondering are the new face of the NDP. I have always worked for it because of the individual candidates like Svend and Bill who I could help elect to speak truth to power not because I thought they were going to attract 40% of Canadian voters to my views.

Gee, Brian Topp really nailed it in that one! So what does he think about Ocasio-Cortez and her breakthrough of the commie/pinko demonizing wall in her country? Is it too early for her to become the anti-Trump?

If another Bernie can come along and really succeed in breaking the establishment control of the two Neo-Nazi parties, it could be the model and the impetus for the same in Canada!

Serious doubts though on Jaggi being the man to be leading it?

Montgomery, Jaggi Singh and Jagmeet Singh are entirely different people. Jagmeet Singh would never say anything remotely like this:

"Everybody is an idealist. Everybody has this idea that things should be better and that's really a non-ideological thing. The fear is that those idealists will become radicals and start questioning the roots of the system, start questioning the power structure. People in power don't like that. You have to turn these idealists into realists, because once they're realists, they can accept the compromises that opportunists make; those being the politicians.

And how do you turn an idealist into a realist instead of a radical? Well, a baton blow to the head is one way. Getting wafts of tear gas is another. Yet another is making the radicals seem crazy and criminal. Give the distinct impression through the media that you will be jailed. You will be treated differently and it's not worth the trouble. As long as idealists stay that way, or even better become realists or opportunists, that's great." [13]

Actually Mont.. in my experience people who apply pet names for politicians are usually not their supporters.

I couldn't care less about the NDP winning or losing. I have done my years going the route of electing politicians to make a difference. After Bill's betrayal by Jack and the Ottawa cabal I have not bothered with the federal party.

I don't generally ask for anyone to be banned. However when I am in a certain kind of mood I will tell you to fuck off but never to try and silence you. You and Pondering are the new face of the NDP. I have always worked for it because of the individual candidates like Svend and Bill who I could help elect to speak truth to power not because I thought they were going to attract 40% of Canadian voters to my views.

I'll have to read a bit more of 'Pondering' to learn what you have decided is going to be my face?

Tolerance and and an inclusive attitude Kropotkin, that's what it's going to take.

So...to review...the "romantics"(by which me seems to mean what passes for the NDP's left wing), the people left totally out in the cold by Mulcair-and, to be fair, by pretty much every NDP leader ever-are the ones Brian blames for the party losing more than half its seats in 2015 and remaining stuck at around 15% in the polls, and at time as low as 11%, ever SINCE.

Those who have actually made most of the decisions about how the party is run and what its policies are are, by contrast, utterly blameless.

And the answer, according to Brian, is to put the "romantics" even FURTHER out in the cold, and to give the people who have KEPT the "romantics" out in the cold even more totally unaccountable power.

Because that approach has worked so brilliantly in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, apparently.

Gee, Brian Topp really nailed it in that one! So what does he think about Ocasio-Cortez and her breakthrough of the commie/pinko demonizing wall in her country? Is it too early for her to become the anti-Trump?

If another Bernie can come along and really succeed in breaking the establishment control of the two Neo-Nazi parties, it could be the model and the impetus for the same in Canada!

Serious doubts though on Jaggi being the man to be leading it?

Montgomery, Jaggi Singh and Jagmeet Singh are entirely different people. Jagmeet Singh would never say anything remotely like this:

"Everybody is an idealist. Everybody has this idea that things should be better and that's really a non-ideological thing. The fear is that those idealists will become radicals and start questioning the roots of the system, start questioning the power structure. People in power don't like that. You have to turn these idealists into realists, because once they're realists, they can accept the compromises that opportunists make; those being the politicians.

And how do you turn an idealist into a realist instead of a radical? Well, a baton blow to the head is one way. Getting wafts of tear gas is another. Yet another is making the radicals seem crazy and criminal. Give the distinct impression through the media that you will be jailed. You will be treated differently and it's not worth the trouble. As long as idealists stay that way, or even better become realists or opportunists, that's great." [13]

I get your point Ken, I should keep them separate, even though I meant nothing malicious when I referred to him as Jaggi.

Maybe my main problem with Jagmeet is that I'm not a religious believer and I see problems with Christians who wear their torture device symbol around their necks on a chain. Same with Jagmeet's in my view. Even though I believe that we have to be inclusive of the minority of Canadians who are rebligious believers. It's just that all else being equal, I would prefer the neutral candidate. And the main reason why I say that is because it's our task to put up a candidate that appeals to the most people.

Disclaimer: A black guy, an East Indian, a Chinese person, an Aboriginal, or a white guy are all fine with me. It's the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., that I'm a bit wary of supporting.

Do you think that many Canadians are stigmatized by the symbol too?

But I mean, whattaya do? Ask them to renounce their religious affiliations?

Anyways Ken, I'm more interested in success of the party than anything else right now. I think a great window of opportunity is about to open for the left. It's the probable groundswell of shit that's coming down when the left abandons Trump in the US. Canada will likely follow!

Gee, Brian Topp really nailed it in that one! So what does he think about Ocasio-Cortez and her breakthrough of the commie/pinko demonizing wall in her country? Is it too early for her to become the anti-Trump?

If another Bernie can come along and really succeed in breaking the establishment control of the two Neo-Nazi parties, it could be the model and the impetus for the same in Canada!

Serious doubts though on Jaggi being the man to be leading it?

Montgomery, Jaggi Singh and Jagmeet Singh are entirely different people. Jagmeet Singh would never say anything remotely like this:

"Everybody is an idealist. Everybody has this idea that things should be better and that's really a non-ideological thing. The fear is that those idealists will become radicals and start questioning the roots of the system, start questioning the power structure. People in power don't like that. You have to turn these idealists into realists, because once they're realists, they can accept the compromises that opportunists make; those being the politicians.

And how do you turn an idealist into a realist instead of a radical? Well, a baton blow to the head is one way. Getting wafts of tear gas is another. Yet another is making the radicals seem crazy and criminal. Give the distinct impression through the media that you will be jailed. You will be treated differently and it's not worth the trouble. As long as idealists stay that way, or even better become realists or opportunists, that's great." [13]

I get your point Ken, I should keep them separate, even though I meant nothing malicious when I referred to him as Jaggi.

Maybe my main problem with Jagmeet is that I'm not a religious believer and I see problems with Christians who wear their torture device symbol around their necks on a chain. Same with Jagmeet's in my view. Even though I believe that we have to be inclusive of the minority of Canadians who are rebligious believers. It's just that all else being equal, I would prefer the neutral candidate. And the main reason why I say that is because it's our task to put up a candidate that appeals to the most people.

Disclaimer: A black guy, an East Indian, a Chinese person, an Aboriginal, or a white guy are all fine with me. It's the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., that I'm a bit wary of supporting.

Do you think that many Canadians are stigmatized by the symbol too?

But I mean, whattaya do? Ask them to renounce their religious affiliations?

Anyways Ken, I'm more interested in success of the party than anything else right now. I think a great window of opportunity is about to open for the left. It's the probable groundswell of shit that's coming down when the left abandons Trump in the US. Canada will likely follow!

I realize you had no malicious intent. It was just that calling the one who leads the NDP by a nickname that happens to be the full name of the other guy was getting a bit confusing. Most folks refer to the NDP leader simply by his full first name.

Maybe my main problem with Jagmeet is that I'm not a religious believer and I see problems with Christians who wear their torture device symbol around their necks on a chain. Same with Jagmeet's in my view. Even though I believe that we have to be inclusive of the minority of Canadians who are rebligious believers.

I'm not a believer either, but the overwhelming majority (76%) of Canadians are, whether or not they wear signs.

Not always Ken. I sometimes refer to Jagmeet sometimes as Jag. But not Jag Singh.

I wasn't arguing that anybody would refer to him as Jag Singh-just that it's confusing to call the man "Jaggi" because there is, in fact, another public figure in Canada NAMED Jaggi Singh. I respect your right to call the man what you wish to, though.

Maybe my main problem with Jagmeet is that I'm not a religious believer and I see problems with Christians who wear their torture device symbol around their necks on a chain. Same with Jagmeet's in my view. Even though I believe that we have to be inclusive of the minority of Canadians who are rebligious believers.

I'm not a believer either, but the overwhelming majority (76%) of Canadians are, whether or not they wear signs.

No, that's incorrect. You're trying to spin the issue in favour of religion. I can just as legitimately spin it to say that only a small minority will choose creation over Darwinian evolution, and I would be more correct.

In any case, my issue is with religious symbols being worn to promote religious superstitious beliefs. As I said, 'all else being equal, I'll choose the atheist.'

I tend to be more tolerant of Sikhs, as one example, because their societies aren't as modern and advanced in the science of evolution as the West. The Christian torture devices hung around believers necks irk me more than the others.

Not always Ken. I sometimes refer to Jagmeet sometimes as Jag. But not Jag Singh.

I wasn't arguing that anybody would refer to him as Jag Singh-just that it's confusing to call the man "Jaggi" because there is, in fact, another public figure in Canada NAMED Jaggi Singh. I respect your right to call the man what you wish to, though.

In any case, my issue is with religious symbols being worn to promote religious superstitious beliefs. As I said, 'all else being equal, I'll choose the atheist.'

I tend to be more tolerant of Sikhs, as one example, because their societies aren't as modern and advanced in the science of evolution as the West. The Christian torture devices hung around believers necks irk me more than the others.

Nice that you can afford to decide your vote in this way. Other people have pressing issues, like being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. If your public policies will assist the vast majority of people to be able to do that, I don't care what symbols you wear.

It's like when I hear people complaining about Muslim women wearing the hijab, and I want to say that if that is the worst thing you have to worry about in your life, then I'll gladly trade places with you. You can try and support yourself off the income I make (or support your whole family off that one income if you have one) and I'll gladly take on all of your personal challenges and struggles. I had the same reaction to reading that.

Nice that you can afford to decide your vote in this way. Other people have pressing issues, like being able to pay their bills at the end of the month. If your public policies will assist the vast majority of people to be able to do that, I don't care what symbols you wear.

In your rush to demonize me you've neglected to read what I said. I said that "all else being equal", and that choice is seldom offered. So how about trying again to understand what I said. Here, I'll repeat it for you:

If all else is equal, I'll choose the candidate that isn't wearing the relgious symbol.

Quote:

It's like when I hear people complaining about Muslim women wearing the hijab, and I want to say that if that is the worst thing you have to worry about in your life, then I'll gladly trade places with you. You can try and support yourself off the income I make (or support your whole family off that one income if you have one) and I'll gladly take on all of your personal challenges and struggles. I had the same reaction to reading that.

You didn't react in an appropriate way. Maybe I can reassure you by saying that I'm absolutely of the opinion that everybody be permitted to wear their religious symbols and religious garb in Canada. That includes Hijabs and turbans for mounties. And fwiw, I wouldn't prefer a mountie with the normal hat over one with a turban. That's different.

I tend to be more tolerant of Sikhs, as one example, because their societies aren't as modern and advanced in the science of evolution as the West.

WTF do you mean by this.

careful Montgomery! These comments could get you in trouble here. Now I’m not a moderator and sometimes find myself at odds with other posters for comments I’ve made (and MegB) But this comment you’ve made here that kropotkin has highlighted is way way too risky! Beware.

I tend to be more tolerant of Sikhs, as one example, because their societies aren't as modern and advanced in the science of evolution as the West.

WTF do you mean by this.

careful Montgomery! These comments could get you in trouble here. Now I’m not a moderator and sometimes find myself at odds with other posters for comments I’ve made (and MegB) But this comment you’ve made here that kropotkin has highlighted is way way too risky! Beware.

It's a closed shop pal and it's pretty well impossible to stay out of trouble on this board. But what the hell, I can at least defend what I said.

You see, as societies advance they generally grow away from sky fairy beliefs. The exception is the US and probably Israel just as much but they're quite different. Islam isn't on the road to decline and neither is the Sikh religion to any degree. And to illustrate the point, neither are small tribal religions that worship airplanes passing overhead. I've got a hunch that all of the religious groups have a lot more murdering of each other to do yet. The best hope is for the countries that are throwing it out the quickest. China? Russia? Finland?

I'm talking about my rejection of religious beliefs and my disdain for it. If that isn't accepted as a legitimate position for an NDP'er then that's another issue I have a problem with here on this board. Be sure to let me know!

Granted, it's not all that consistent with the 'romantic' tradition and the regulars' notion of what the party has to be. How's that workin out for ya so far?

I tend to be more tolerant of Sikhs, as one example, because their societies aren't as modern and advanced in the science of evolution as the West.

WTF do you mean by this.

Good point...it sounds like he's saying "I'm ok with them 'cause they're backward and primitive"? They're Sikhs, not Neanderthals.

Not quite Ken but I can set you right on that. It's the same as how we were tolerant of Tommy, but in those days it wasn't so much tolerance as just our convictions. Nowadays we are quite safe in not being hypocrites as long as we're not running for political office. And in Canada, we're almost to the point at which we might be able to sometimes run for political office and declare ourselves to be atheists.

What I'm saying is that in countries that are predominantly Muslim or Sikh or even Xtian in a few exceptions, you wouldn't stand a hope in hell declaring yourself an atheist. And for that matter, in some you would likely loose your head if you differed from the established rule.

You're a bright guy Ken and you can understand that if you care to do so. I need to run it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it, regardless of the consequences. Because I have principles!

Sikhs aren't more backward and primite than Christians or Muslims. The countries that practice those religions are more or less backward according to their degree of affliction, than the enlightened atheist mainly countries, in my opinion.

As I said earlier, the earth is somwhere between 6000 years old and 4.453 billion years old. I'm much closer to the latter on that and I fear those who are much, much closer to the former.

I can even tell everybody why that is if I get the chance to continue tomorrow.

But for now, as a rule, everything else being equal, I would generally go with the guy/girl who isn't wearing the religious symbol.

Monto what I don't understand is which countries citizens are primarily atheists? Unlike you I don't think any religion is more or less primitive or from primitive cultures. But then I hate religion but love spirituality. The ideal is great the institutions are the problem. In contrast to a caste society Sikhism has a long tradition of equality that you might find interesting. Like many things I accept that most people are not atheists like myself.

I think the difference between religious people who are concerned about athiests and visa versa is that when athiests are concerned about religious people it is not becuase of what they beleive but what they do, their insistance that others obey the rules they set out according to their beliefs, and their intolerance. Of course there are religious people who want to spin that a different way. When religious people are concerned about athiests it is usually becuase the athiests are too demanding about having religious people not ram their beliefs down other people's throats.

Athiests don't tend to get worked up becuase someone believes something else so long as they are not pressing those beliefs on others.

Monto what I don't understand is which countries citizens are primarily atheists? Unlike you I don't think any religion is more or less primitive or from primitive cultures.

China is more atheistic and I think that Russia is too because they took measures to reduce religious influence. In Russia, it probably hasn't rebounded to the level at which it would be had those measures not been taken. That's neither an endoresement of Russia's methods or a rejection. You are welcome to try to trap me into taking a position on that later.

Quote:

But then I hate religion but love spirituality. The ideal is great the institutions are the problem. In contrast to a caste society Sikhism has a long tradition of equality that you might find interesting. Like many things I accept that most people are not atheists like myself.

I don't think I like the spirituality part of it either in the sense you are promoting it. I think you're trying to say that you are opposed to organized religion but are religious in a more private way. I'm neither of course. I don't think I would find the Sikh religion any more enlightened than the rest of them so I won't bother.

Although there might be something good to say about Buddhism, because it's often said to not be a religion. I dunno?

I think the difference between religious people who are concerned about athiests and visa versa is that when athiests are concerned about religious people it is not becuase of what they beleive but what they do, their insistance that others obey the rules they set out according to their beliefs, and their intolerance. Of course there are religious people who want to spin that a different way. When religious people are concerned about athiests it is usually becuase the athiests are too demanding about having religious people not ram their beliefs down other people's throats.

Athiests don't tend to get worked up becuase someone believes something else so long as they are not pressing those beliefs on others.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say Sean but I'll just say that I'm mainly opposed to religion because it's child abuse to fill a child's brain with nonsense before the child is old enough to form his/her own opinions.

You see, if we could eliminate that then we could probably eliminate religions for the most part in two or three generations.

Do you think an adult over the age of about 16 would be willing to take on that kind of baggage?

Notwithstanding the need for religion's security that some people bow to in times of need. Few have the courage of Christopher Hitchens.

Monto what I don't understand is which countries citizens are primarily atheists? Unlike you I don't think any religion is more or less primitive or from primitive cultures.

China is more atheistic and I think that Russia is too because they took measures to reduce religious influence. In Russia, it probably hasn't rebounded to the level at which it would be had those measures not been taken. That's neither an endoresement of Russia's methods or a rejection. You are welcome to try to trap me into taking a position on that later.

The anti-gay actions of Putin's government have the support of the established Orthodox church. Try again.

Monto what I don't understand is which countries citizens are primarily atheists? Unlike you I don't think any religion is more or less primitive or from primitive cultures.

China is more atheistic and I think that Russia is too because they took measures to reduce religious influence. In Russia, it probably hasn't rebounded to the level at which it would be had those measures not been taken. That's neither an endoresement of Russia's methods or a rejection. You are welcome to try to trap me into taking a position on that later.

The anti-gay actions of Putin's government have the support of the established Orthodox church. Try again.

No, I won't try again, the ball's in your court so it's now up to you to show that Russia isn't more atheistic than other countries.

And besides, I surmised and didn't state anything for a fact. When you do, I'll take it as a learning experience!